Commentary on Isaiah 7:14

[Aureole]

Could anyone provide some commentary on Isaiah 7:14? I’ve seen some varying translations on it this evening and was wondering about a few things. The translation of “virgin” specifically.

The NAB reads as such:

Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Emmanuel, which means “God is with us!’

Now, comparing that with the RSV:

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman’u-el.

There’s an obvious difference here. I’ve heard that the RSV is a more literal translation, which could explain the difference. I looked it up on the NET Bible and it translates it as young woman as well, providing the following note:

Traditionally, “virgin.” Because this verse from Isaiah is quoted in Matt 1:23 in connection with Jesus’ birth, the Isaiah passage has been regarded since the earliest Christian times as a prophecy of Christ’s virgin birth. Much debate has taken place over the best way to translate this Hebrew term, although ultimately one’s view of the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ is unaffected. Though the Hebrew word used here (עַלְמָה, ’almah) can sometimes refer to a woman who is a virgin (Gen 24:43), it does not carry this meaning inherently. The word is simply the feminine form of the corresponding masculine noun עֶלֶם (’elem, “young man”; cf. 1 Sam 17:56; 20:22). The Aramaic and Ugaritic cognate terms are both used of women who are not virgins. The word seems to pertain to age, not sexual experience, and would normally be translated “young woman.” The LXX translator(s) who later translated the Book of Isaiah into Greek sometime between the second and first century b.c., however, rendered the Hebrew term by the more specific Greek word παρθένος (parqenos), which does mean “virgin” in a technical sense. This is the Greek term that also appears in the citation of Isa 7:14 in Matt 1:23. Therefore, regardless of the meaning of the term in the OT context, in the NT Matthew’s usage of the Greek term παρθένος clearly indicates that from his perspective a virgin birth has taken place.

I don’t really have a question other than to ask people to kindly provide some more commentary on this particular passage (Personal or otherwise).

Thank you in advance.

 

[tdandh26]

Just a thought, the Bible is the inspired word of God, correct? Then God would have inspired Isaiah to have prophesied also correct? What would have been so special about a prophet or even some schmuck on the street saying a young woman was going to have a son. I doubt many people would have batted an eye. But, if they heard that their savior was to born of a virgin, that would have something special that would be of note.

 

[Todd_Easton]

Similar commentary on Isaias 7:14 is found in* A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture,* edited by Bernard Orchard, published by Thomas Nelson & Sons in 1953, on page 546, which says, in part:
The Heb.[Hebrew] word here translated ‘virgin’ is not the technical term, betulah, but its practical equivalent, almah, which means an unmarried maiden of marriage-able age, presumed to be a virgin by the strict moral code of the Hebrews. The word never designates a married woman and is sometimes rendered parthenos ‘virgin’ by the LXX [Greek Septuagint]. … The imposition of the child’s name by the mother, contrary to custom (cf. 8:3), confirms the conclusion of a virginal conception.

 

[Aureole]

tdandh26:

Just a thought, the Bible is the inspired word of God, correct? Then God would have inspired Isaiah to have prophesied also correct? What would have been so special about a prophet or even some schmuck on the street saying a young woman was going to have a son. I doubt many people would have batted an eye. But, if they heard that their savior was to born of a virgin, that would have something special that would be of note.

Very true, I didn’t think of it that way. Thank you.
Todd Easton:

Similar commentary on Isaias 7:14 is found in* A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture,* edited by Bernard Orchard, published by Thomas Nelson & Sons in 1953, on page 546, which says, in part:The Heb.[Hebrew] word here translated ‘virgin’ is not the technical term, betulah, but its practical equivalent, almah, which means an unmarried maiden of marriage-able age, presumed to be a virgin by the strict moral code of the Hebrews. The word never designates a married woman and is sometimes rendered parthenos ‘virgin’ by the LXX [Greek Septuagint]. … The imposition of the child’s name by the mother, contrary to custom (cf. 8:3), confirms the conclusion of a virginal conception.

Well, it’s similar but slightly different. This is a bit clearer (Maybe it’s organized better?). Thank you.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

tdandh26:

Just a thought, the Bible is the inspired word of God, correct? Then God would have inspired Isaiah to have prophesied also correct? What would have been so special about a prophet or even some schmuck on the street saying a young woman was going to have a son. I doubt many people would have batted an eye. But, if they heard that their savior was to born of a virgin, that would have something special that would be of note.

It wasn’t part of the Bible then though - there was no “Bible” of any kind at the time.​

Isaiah was not a “schmuck” (what on earth is that, BTW ?) - he seems to have had ready access to the court; which is why the “son” may have been Hezekiah, son of Ahaz king of Judah (it being for the benefit of Ahaz that this oracle was delivered).

At least primarily, this oracle needs to be taken in its immediate political context: the Assyrians are mentioned in the oracle:

Isa 7:1 In the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, son of Uzzi’ah, king of Judah, Rezin the king of Syria and Pekah the son of Remali’ah the king of Israel came up to Jerusalem to wage war against it, but they could not conquer it.
Isa 7:2 When the house of David was told, “Syria is in league with E’phraim,” his heart and the heart of his people shook as the trees of the forest shake before the wind.
Isa 7:3 And the LORD said to Isaiah, “Go forth to meet Ahaz, you and She’ar-jash’ub your son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool on the highway to the Fuller’s Field,
Isa 7:4 and say to him, ‘Take heed, be quiet, do not fear, and do not let your heart be faint because of these two smoldering stumps of firebrands, at the fierce anger of Rezin and Syria and the son of Remali’ah.
Isa 7:5 Because Syria, with E’phraim and the son of Remali’ah, has devised evil against you, saying,
Isa 7:6 “Let us go up against Judah and terrify it, and let us conquer it for ourselves, and set up the son of Ta’be-el as king in the midst of it,”
Isa 7:7 thus says the Lord GOD: It shall not stand, and it shall not come to pass.
Isa 7:8 For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin. (Within sixty-five years Ephraim will be broken to pieces so that it will no longer be a people.)
Isa 7:9 And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Sama’ria is the son of Remali’ah. If you will not believe, surely you shall not be established.’”
Isa 7:10 Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz,
Isa 7:11 “Ask a sign of the LORD your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven.”
Isa 7:12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, and I will not put the LORD to the test.”
Isa 7:13 And he said, “Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also?
Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Isa 7:15 He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good.
Isa 7:16 For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted.
Isa 7:17 The LORD will bring upon you and upon your people and upon your father’s house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah – the king of Assyria.” [This seems to be where the oracle ends]

v. 16 refers back to the kings of Damascus and Israel mentioned in verses 8 & 9 - who were not present at the Nativity That is why immediate context matters - the verses of the books of the Bible are not a string of otherwise unconnected pearls, which might as well have been placed in any old order; they’re parts of coherent units of writing, with beginnings, middles, and ends, which have been assembled into longer units, then into what wwe have as chapters, then into what we have as books, and so on.

For further info, see: hope.edu/academic/religion/bandstra/RTOT/CH10/CH10_1B.HTM (THe site as a whole is about the OT)

That’s not to deny that Isaiah 7.14 has an applied and fuller meaning, as recorded in Matthew 1.23; but the meaning in Matthew can’t be used to cross out or blot out the meaning the verse quoted from Isaiah had in Isaiah’s time. (In any case, Isa. 7.14 is word for word identical with a line in a Canaanite myth: Matthew was re-using something the prophet had himself re-used (as he does elsewhere in Isaiah). Which tells us something about how God can use anything to accomplish his purpose. ##

 

[Aureole]

Gottle of Geer, thank you for that wonderful post. I wouldn’t have thought of that passage in it’s immediate political context, though I probably should have. I think it’s actually much more interesting if you do look at it in the immediate political context, not to mention it making a bit more sense (In addition to the context from St. Matthew).

And thank you for that website, I’ll be likely to make heavy use of it whenever I get a query like this again.

 

[anawim]

Gottle of Geer:

Isaiah was not a “schmuck” (what on earth is that, BTW ?) -

It’s yiddish. Censor picked it up. Put together the “at” sign, and two dollar signs, and that should give you a clue.

 

[anawim]

Aureole:

Could anyone provide some commentary on Isaiah 7:14? I’ve seen some varying translations on it this evening and was wondering about a few things. The translation of “virgin” specifically.

The NAB reads as such:

Now, comparing that with the RSV:

There’s an obvious difference here. I’ve heard that the RSV is a more literal translation, which could explain the difference. I looked it up on the NET Bible and it translates it as young woman as well, providing the following note:

I don’t really have a question other than to ask people to kindly provide some more commentary on this particular passage (Personal or otherwise).

Thank you in advance.

In Hebrew it would be the word alma, which simply means young woman, rather than the word for virgin which is bethulah. However, Rebekkah was referred to as an alma before she was wedded to Isaac, so it can mean virgin.

 

[tdandh26]

## It wasn’t part of the Bible then though - there was no “Bible” of any kind at the time.

Isaiah was not a “schmuck” (what on earth is that

, BTW ?) - he seems to have had ready access to the court; which is why the “son” may have been Hezekiah, son of Ahaz king of Judah (it being for the benefit of Ahaz that this oracle was delivered).

Thank you, I know that the Bible did not exist then. Wow, I guess I need to be very specific when I try to simply explain something. I was saying that the people who heard him wouldn’t have paid a whole lot of attention to a statement like that, and by the way the Jews did read from scrolls and they did know this prophesy.